The virtual tracks left by people as they change jobs delineate the shifting patterns of the business world: a concentration towards or away from a company speaks volumes about the subtle and mostly invisible dynamics that lie below. So this news truly speaks volumes:Li Gong, the former top executive for MSN in China, has joined Mozilla's Chinese subsidiary, Mozilla Online, as its chairman and CEO.
Microsoft, are we worried yet?
I knew that I knew nothing about aQuantive. Here, for example, is something rather important that I didn't know I didn't know:Information available from Atlas' Web site indicates the Internet software company employs extensive use of open source software including Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Solaris.
Software engineers at Atlas' Raleigh office do client/server development in C and C++, software maintenance and "scripting", and developing and maintaining custom reporting capabilities.
Other sought after skills include Unix development, JavaScript, and those for Windows software administration like SQL Server and IIS.
The use of open source is not confined to Atlas with the second significant business unit Avenue A Razorfish boasting "we also frequently utilize open source technologies".
There was a similar situation when Microsoft bought Hotmail, which was running on Apache and FreeBSD for a long time after acquisition. Since aQuantive is much bigger, we can presumably expect Microsoft to have even more difficulty assimilating it.
Interesting:Today UK regulator Ofcom released its review of the ~750 responses it received during a public consultation earlier this year on reallocating the "digital dividend" (frequencies released by the switch-off of analog TV broadcasts).
The exceptionally large number of responses shows that the public recognised the importance of this consultation. It also shows that Ofcom's proposals were controversial. Many commenters question whether auctions of service-neutral licenses can ensure that non-economic factors are considered in the redistribution of spectrum.
Ofcom's review of the responses gives a surprising amount of space to Microsoft's submission, which was only 8 pages long. Since that response argued strongly for license exempt use of the "dividend" we find it especially interesting, too.
I've been remiss on this one - in fact, mea culpa, I didn't even get around to making a submission myself (shocking, I know). So it's great to see Microsoft doing it for me....
Google's story that it's really, really, really not competing with Microsoft gets thinner by the day. Apparently, it's just bought a very interesting security company called the GreenBorder Technologies:Headquartered in Mountain View, California, GreenBorder Technologies was founded in 2001 to bring a new approach to enterprise security. GreenBorder, the industry’s first Desktop DMZ software for Windows, keeps Internet invaders out and enterprise data in. It allows users to safely connect anywhere, go to any website, open any Internet email or attachment, and use any downloaded files without worry. GreenBorder’s unique, signature-less approach never needs updating and provides continuous protection against corruption, theft and invasion of business data systems.
I wonder when Microsoft is going to take Google seriously.
So, details of the Microsoft-Novell agreement have been released. IANAL, but this is unbelievable:7.2 ***. If a *** (or ***e.g., an *** or ***) *** that this Agreement or the *** (including *** or with respect thereto) of *** under this Agreement are not *** to which a *** and there is an *** by a *** with respect to such *** that the *** and there is no *** (e.g. through amendment of this Agreement), then such *** may*** of the *** this Agreement by *** to the ***.
No, really.
This is getting seriously hard to parse:In a surprise announcement earlier today at the Open Source Business Conference, Novell and the Electronic Frontier Foundation said that Novell would be contributing to the EFF's Patent Busting project. In addition, the two entities will work for legislation and policies that will "promote innovation," specifically targeting the World Intellectual Property Organization.
As I've written elsewhere, Microsoft's FUD is more interesting for what it says about the company's deepest fears than for its overt message. This is certainly the case for the latest example:Coverage of the debate on the new version of the GNU Public License (GPLv3) has focused on the differing opinions among three groups: Project leaders like Linus Torvalds and other top Linux kernel developers; Foundations like the Free Software Foundation (FSF) led by Richard Stallman; and Large Technology Companies such as Sun, HP, IBM, and Novell. While these three groups are certainly all affected by revisions to the GPL, open source developers are also affected, but have been significantly under-represented in the discussion. In this paper, our objective was to give developers a voice and bring their opinions into the debate. What does this fourth constituency think about open source licenses, the upcoming release of the GPLv3, and the philosophies surrounding open source software?
Actually, I lied: the results in this particular case, although predictable, are so hilarious that they deserve wider airing:Thus our results suggest the actions of the FSF may only be favored by approximately 10% of the broader community and leads us to ask, should a committee be created with a charter to create and revise open source licenses using a governance model similar to that of the open source development model? Is it contrary to the spirit of the open source community, which relies on the wisdom and view of the masses, to have the governance of licenses controlled by a few individuals whose views run contrary to the objectives of potentially 90% of the people affected by their actions, especially when the community members are the very creators and developers of the software under discussion?
Hello, people: those "few individuals" you are talking about are essentially Richard Stallman, as in Richard Stallman who single-handedly started this whole thing, fought most of the key battles, and even wrote some of the most important code, alone. And you're questioning his right to revise the licence that he - as in Richard Stallman - devised and then gave to the world?
But of course the main takeaway from this is that Microsoft is really, really worried by precisely those new provisions in GPLv3 that are designed to limit its ability to subvert free software, to the extent that it would even contemplate publishing a sponsored report of this kind based on - wait for it - a massive 34 replies out of 332 requests; talk about "few individuals".
Thanks for the info, chaps.
Recently I was bemused by Microsoft's espousal of ODF, and now here we have the company spreading more joy:The company on Monday is expected to announce that it is sponsoring an open-source project to create a converter between Ecma Open XML--a set of file formats closely tied to Microsoft Office--and a Chinese national standard called Unified Office Format (UOF).
I think I understand what Microsoft is up to.
Until recently, its approach was to try to block ODF at every twist and turn: the last thing it wanted was another standard - much less a truly cross-platform, open one - to join the club of approved formats.
That strategy has failed: ODF is being chosen or is on the brink of being chosen by more and more governments around the world. And where governments lead, local business will follow. Microsoft is now faced with the prospect of losing its monopoly in the office sector. Indeed, it risks being locked out completely, as more and more countries opt for ODF only.
So I think Microsoft has decided to cut its losses, and go for a very different approach. Given that it can't shut out ODF, and there is a danger that Microsoft's OOXML will not be selected alongside it, the company is now pushing very hard for as many standards as possible: the new mantra being "Choice is Good". The point being, of course, that if you have lots of competing standards, then the one with the largest market share - Microsoft's - is likely to have the advantage.
It's a shrewd move, because at first blush it's hard to argue against having choice. But the flaw in this argument is that choice has to occur around the standard, through competing implementations, not between standards. In the latter case, all the benefits of open standards are lost, and the status quo is preserved. Which, of course, is exactly what Microsoft is hoping to achieve with its sudden rash of generosity.
First, this incredible opening par:Some of the changes in the upcoming release of Windows Server 2008 are a response to features and performance advantages that have made Linux an attractive option to Microsoft customers.
Er, say that again? Windows Server 2008 is explicitly responding to GNU/Linux?
Then, this little nugget:"Having less surface area does reduce the servicing and the amount of code you have running and exposed, so we have done a lot of work in 2008 to make the system more modular. You have the server manager; every role is optional, and there are more than 30 components not installed by default, which is a huge change," Laing said.
Ah, yes, modularity....
Interesting: Microsoft has apparently paid $6 billion for a company I've never heard of - aQuantive. Aside from demonstrating my shallow knowledge, this also underlines the fact that we live in an online world driven by advertising. And people said the banner ad was dead....
No, really:
Microsoft Corp. today announced that it has voted to support the addition of OpenDocument Format (ODF) 1.0 to the nonexclusive American National Standards list.
Not quite sure why, but let's hope for the best. (Via tuxmachines.org.)
The hot news, of course, is Microsoft's threat to sue the entire open source ecosystem. Or maybe not. As Techdirt rightly points out, this is not a threat, but actually just re-heated FUD. But even more, it's a final wake-up call: we need to get software patents sorted out before they sort out free software.
Very interesting development here: Microsoft is starting to pursue Yahoo. This is completely logical: Microsoft is getting so utterly trounced by Google that it needs to bulk up fast in the online search sector and its related fields.
Of course, integrating two such companies would be a hugely challenging task, and might be disastrous for both. But assuming it happens and doesn't collapse under its own weight, such a merger would also have very interesting repercussions for open source.
After all, Google is pretty wedded to free software as a competitive weapon against Microsoft, whereas Yahoo is probably more neutral on the matter. If Microsoft got its mitts on Yahoo, that would undoubtedly change, and its offerings would become far more Windows-centric - at which point, things would start to get really nasty.
It's certainly a cool scoop for the New York Post, but I do wonder about their subs (maybe they trained on the Grauniad):Microsoft and Yahoo! also feature complimentary offerings on the content side, with MSN drawing an older audience with its news focus.
I'm not sure their very complimentary at the moment, but doubtless they will become that way if Microsoft pulls this off.
Maybe I'm an incorrigible optimist, but these look hopeful signs:The U.S. Supreme Court made it easier to challenge patents for failing to introduce genuine innovations, siding with Intel Corp. and Cisco Systems Inc. and dealing a setback to the drug and biotechnology industries.
...
The decision extends a Supreme Court trend that has put new limits on patent rights. In today's case, the justices heeded arguments from large computer companies and automakers that the lower court test, which centered on the requirement that an invention be "non-obvious," had given too much power to developers of trivial technological improvements.
"Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court.
(Via Slashdot.)
As regular readers may have noticed, I'm not a big fan of Flash. But news that Adobe is open-sourcing Flex, its development framework for building Flash and Apollo-based applications, is, I suppose, marginally better than being poked in the eye with a sharp stick:
Adobe is announcing plans to open source Flex under the Mozilla Public License (MPL). This includes not only the source to the ActionScript components from the Flex SDK, which have been available in source code form with the SDK since Flex 2 was released, but also includes the Java source code for the ActionScript and MXML compilers, the ActionScript debugger and the core ActionScript libraries from the SDK. The Flex SDK includes all of the components needed to create Flex applications that run in any browser - on Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux and on now on the desktop using “Apollo”.
Developers can use the Flex SDK to freely develop and deploy Flex applications using either Adobe Flex Builder or an IDE of their choice.
It looks like my musings have come true rather sooner than I expected.
So let's get this straight:What got really interesting was when Yusseri raised the issue of OOXML and why didn't Microsoft just work on ODF in collaboration instead of creating a new, bloated standard. Bill [Hilf]'s answer was quite surprising, as he clarified that the file format (OOXML) was a part of the software and that OOXML and the software (MS Office) are quite inseparable. Ergo, OOXML is an integral and inseparable part of MS Office. That's why they could not adopt ODF as the file format for subsequent versions of MS Office.
Oh, I see. As in Internet Explorer is part of Windows, and quite inseparable - apart from the version of Internet Explorer that came in the Windows Plus! box to add on to the very first version of Windows 95 that was released without Internet Explorer.
All makes sense now.
A strange post here from the usually perceptive James Governor:One of my current hobby horses is that we the industry needs to move beyond good vs evil, manichaen black vs white, beyond the single answer to a problem. Our monoetheism does us no favours. A more polytheistic sense, of using the right tools for the job, and being in mastery, bringing a more distributed spirituality into our technology saturated lives. And document formats seems an obvious place for that kind of thinking. One true format? What do we need that for and what god are we worshipping? What are the problems we’re trying to solve?
Well, how about breaking lock-in in the Office market? How about trying to create a level playing-field so there are lots of solutions - not just one, as now (that's monotheism)? How about creating a truly open standard that is not controlled by one company, and that can grow according to the needs and desires of users?
And saying, well, let's have two standards, doesn't cut it for purely pragmatic reasons. Unless Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop is broken, it will continue; unless ODF becomes the single, global, open standard, Microsoft's pretend open standards will continue to exert their vice-like grip on the market, sustained through sheer inertia from a time when there was no alternative. Now there is.
ODF in itself is nothing special, except that it is truly open, and backed now by enough users and companies to be viable. Its main function is to create the conditions for competition and network effects to kick in. It is not so much a god that has to be worshipped, as a landscape in which things can be built.
Not one god, not two gods, but no gods.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is using a speech in Beijing to unveil a new low-cost bundle of Office and Windows, one of several new initiatives aimed at getting PCs into the hands of more people in emerging markets.
The software maker will offer the $3 Student Innovation Suite to governments that agree to directly purchase PCs for students to use in their schoolwork and at home.
I've always been surprised Microsoft hasn't done this before, since it was fighting a losing battle against completely free software in developing countries. But aside from its competitive aspect, there's one that interests me more.
Microsoft is gradually reducing the perceived price of its software to zero. Apart from the difficulties this will cause it in those markets where it is still charging hundreds of dollars, it also means that the move to open sourcing its code, and literally giving it away, comes one step closer. It'll happen, mark my words.
"It was like the movie 'Men in Black,'" says Rep. Homan. "Three Microsoft lobbyists, all wearing black suits."
Another lobbyist (unaffiliated with Microsoft) who would speak only "on background" laughed at the "Men in Black" description. "I know those guys," he said. "They even wear sunglasses like in that movie. They are the 'Men in Black' of Florida lobbying, for sure."
A legislative staff employee who would lose his job if he were quoted here by name said, "By the time those lobbyists were done talking, it sounded like ODF (Open Document Format, the free and open format used by OpenOffice.org and other free software) was proprietary and the Microsoft format was the open and free one."
Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft's interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals.
Amusing as this might seem, it's pretty serious, if true - and there's no reason to disbelieve it. Moreover, I think it will come back to bite Microsoft. This is not the way a corporation should act - and a further sign that Microsoft is deeply worried.
This, at first sight, is just sad. But maybe it's actually interesting: to see whether someone who apparently got it, and now clearly doesn't get it, does finally get it.
Posts
All Comments
To the extent possible under law,
glyn moody
has waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to
this work.
This work is published from:
United Kingdom.
